Given the nature of University conduct proceedings: (including, but not limited to, Administrative Hearings, Student Court, and All-University Court hearings), the testimony of, and information derived from experts, such as reports of handwriting experts, are not admissible and will not be considered, except in rare circumstances. In those rare cases, determinations as to the admissibility of testimony of or evidence derived from an expert will be made in the sole discretion of the Vice President for Student Affairs or designee, General Counsel, and the University President....
The accused may choose a Kentucky State University faculty, staff, or student advisor who is not related to the accused, and who has not had formal legal training, to accompany him or her during the hearing. The advisor may not address the administrative hearing officer nor the conduct counsel, but may consult with the accused student during the hearing. No person who has a substantial interest in the case, or in a related case as an accused student or advisor to an accused student, may serve as an advisor.
Persons conducting the hearing and considering statements against the accused (for example, statements in the student's file), must advise the accused of the content of the statements and give the student an opportunity to rebut inferences that might be drawn. The accused may present testimony and make arguments not only with regard to the offense but also with regard to the excuse, justification, etc.
HE3.
42. Dr. Stokes argues that the charge of denying students their due process rights “arises from a two-prong allegation.”5 The Petitioner claims a student, MS, was involved in both a “classroom safety incident” and an “alleged plagiarism incident.” This argument is legally incorrect and factually disingenuous. Not only is “Charge 2” in KSU’s April 22, 2016, charging document only about students’ allegedly committing the academic offense of
5 Petitioner's Post-Hearing Argument, page 6.
16